BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Friday the 25th day of February , 2011
C.C.No 143/10
Between:
S.Sivarama Krishna, S/o. S.Chendra Sekar,
R/o D.No.70-108-3, Near Chowdeshwari Temple, Kallur, Kurnool - 4.
…Complainant
-Vs-
N.Subramanyam, S/o N.Sanjeeva Rayudu,
R/o D.No.45/139,Narasima Reddy Nagar, Kurnool - 1.
…Opposite ParTy
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri S.Sivaramakrishna Prasad, Advocate, for complainant, and Sri T.Siva Kumar, Advocate, for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 143/10
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-
(a) To direct the opposite party to register a House Plot in the name of the complainant in Sy.No.102 of the Kallur of Kurnool District, after receipt of the balance payment of Rs.3,600/-.
- To award a sum of Rs.75,000/- for causing mental agony.
- To pay cost of the complaint;
And
(d) To grant such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- In the year 1985 the opposite party started a Housing Scheme under the name and style Sri Surya Priya Town Ship and Suryapriya Nagar, Kurnool. The opposite party offered house plots in Survey No.102 in Kallur Grampandhyat limits. The complainant joined as a member in the said scheme and paid 48 installments at the rate of Rs.300/- per month by 11-08-2002. The total members of installments are 60. The opposite party refused to receive subsequent installments from the complainant on the pretext that the complaint should pay the balance amount and registration charges in lumpsum in the month of Apirl 2010. The complainant gave a police complaint against the opposite party. The opposite party is a powerful person and he influenced the police. No case was registered by police against the opposite party. The opposite party filed a suit in O.S.288/2010 on the file of Principle Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool against the complainant for declaration that the complainant is not entitled for registration of the plot in Survey No.102 of Kallur Grampanchyat. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party by not registration the plot by taking balancing amount of Rs.3,600/-. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party filed written version, stating that the complaint is not maintainable. It is false to say that the opposite party not received the monthly installments on the pretext that the complainant should pay the balance amount and registration charges in lumpsum. The complainant is a defaulter in paying total installments. The opposite party filed the suit against the complainant as he was harassing. The transcription between the complainant and the opposite party is 30 years old. The complainant is barred by limitation. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A3 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite party sworn affidavit of the opposite party is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether the complainant is in time?
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party?
(c) To what relief?
7. POINT No.1:- Admittedly the opposite party started Housing Scheme under the name and style Sri Suryapriya Town Ship and Suryapriya Nagar, Kurnool. As per the terms and conditions of the scheme every member should pay 60 monthly installments at the rate of Rs.300/- per month. Admittedly the complainant joined as a member in the Housing Scheme started by the complainant in the year 1985 and paid 48 installments by 11-08-2002. The complainant filed Ex.A1 bunch of receipts issued by Sri Suryapriya Estates. Admittedly the complainant did not pay the subsequent installments. It is the case of the complainant that he could not pay subsequent installments as the opposite party demanded him to pay the balance of installments and registration charges at a time. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party that the complainant committed default in payment of installments subsequent to 11-08-2002 and that the present complaint filed on 30-07-2010 is barred by time section 24-A of C.P. Act 1986 provides that the complaint shall be filed within 2 years form the date on which the case of action has arisen. The cause of action has arisen in this case on 11-09-2002 when the opposite party refused to receive the 49th installment amount. It is not the case of the complainant that he kept quite after paying 48 installments amount on 11-08-2002. It is specifically mentioned in the complaint that the opposite party refused to receive the installments subsequent to 11-08-2002. From the recitals in the complaint it is very clear that the cause of action to the complainant arose in the year 2002. Admittedly the complaint is filed on 30-07-2010 after the laps of 8 years. Admittedly no petition is filed by the complainant to Condon the delay in the filling the complainant. As the present complaint is filed 8 years after the cause of action has arisen, we have no hesitation to hold that the complaint is barred by time.
8. POINT No.2 & 3:- Admittedly the complainant paid 48 installments at the rate of Rs.300/- per month. The total amount is payable in 60 equal monthly installments. According to the complainant, the opposite party refused to receive the subsequent installments. Except the affidavit evidence of complainant there is no evidence on record to show that the opposite party refused to receive the balance of installments subsequent to 11-08-2002 and insisted the complainant to pay the balance of installments along with registration charges in lumpsum. It is know why the complainant kept silent without sending the monthly installments amount by way of D.D. The complainant committed default in payment of balance of installments. One who seeks justice must come with clean hands. In the present case the complainant committed default in payment of installments and filed the present complaint at a belated stage. No legal notice was given by the complainant to the opposite party demanding to opposite party to receive the balance of installments. The complainant approached the police in the month of Apirl 2010 after the closure of the housing scheme by the opposite party. More over the complainant approached the Forum subsequent to filling of the suit by the opposite party in O.S.288/2010 on the file of Principle Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. When the matter is pending in the Civil Court regarding the same matter we think it is not just and proper to grant any relief in favour of the complainant. Both parties can put forth their contentions in the Civil suit O.S.288/2010 which is pending on the file of Principle Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool.
9. In result, the complaint is dismissed without cost. The observations made in this order do not bind the Civil Court in which O.S.288/2010 is pending.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 25th day of February, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite party : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of A bunch of receipts issued by the OP
to the complainant
Ex.A2 Office copy of summons in O.S. 288/2010 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Kurnool.
Ex.A3 Plaint copy in O.S. No.288/2010.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:- Nill
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
